• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Bakery under fire for refusing to make anti-gay cake.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Siegcram

Member
They would be refusing service because they are christian. Unless they just had something against crosses.
Religious hate-speech is still hate-speech. The cross wouldn't be the issue.
Unless they'd be refusing service to all Christians, it still doesn't constitute discrimination.
 

DOWN

Banned
While the point was made stupidly (he could have just asked the bakery to make a cake that said "Gay marriage is a sin"... or something), this is an inconsistency. Which is why I'm against class protections in theory. In practice is a different question.

Cue moral outrage in 3... 2... 1...

How is it inconsistent? It's one thing to deny someone a cake because of who they are, and another to refuse to have to write hate speech. She said she would bake him a cake, but she could not put condemning speech on it.
 
Well I said the point wasn't made well. If the baker refused to bake the cake with a big ass cross on it, it would be similar.

the issue with discrimination isn't what the cake says or how it looks, it's who she is serving. She is more than willing to serve this man and bake him a cake, she just doesn't want to do it with a statement she finds offensive. The other bakeries were baking wedding cakes for straight people but not for gay people. There's a huge difference.

Just like the man who tried to have his "gotcha moment" with this bakery, you are looking at the issue from the wrong angle.
 
Religious hate-speech is still hate-speech. The cross wouldn't be the issue.
Unless they'd be refusing service to all Christians, it still doesn't constitute discrimination.
But that isn't practical. If I put Muslim symbols, and Jewish symbols on cakes, but not Christian, that is discrimination. Similarly, if I'm okay with putting a man and woman as decoration on cakes, but not 2 men or 2 women, that's discrimination. Moreover, I could see an argument cropping up where a bakery once bakes a cake which says "God Loves Gays," but doesn't bake a cake which says "Being Gay is a Sin." This could be construed as religious discrimination because it discriminates against a portion of a religion. The bakery easily accepts a particular notion of God, while refusing another. If religion is a protected class, shouldn't the bakery be forced to accept all religious statements? Finally, if a gay couple orders a cake with a heterosexual couple on the cake, and the bakery agrees to bake it, but disagrees whey they place a homosexual couple on the cake, is this discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

This is the problem in theory with class protections. In practice we accept the contradictions because the problems that arise in lieu of class protections are too great for society to bear (I believe we could carve them out, but the state of our public administration is too shitty to execute it well).
 
Yeah, I'm not gonna entertain stupid hypotheticals any further.
It's all hypothetical until it actually happens. Class protections are very unconstitutional, but we have them because we're too lazy to actually define in what situations people should have the status of a protected class. If you run a hotel or a diner, you should not be able to discriminate. If you run a bakery (and you're not the only one in town), I would argue that you should. There's no practical reason (other than its morally right) to force people who offer specialty services to serve everybody under the sun.
 

Famassu

Member
There's no way anyone can argue this is discrimination because of religion. The bakery is not denying service because of the man's religion, but the hateful shit that he is trying to force the bakery to add into the cake. The man could just ask the people at the bakery to make a cake for him and then do the hateful shit himself.
 

Malreyn

Member
There's no way anyone can argue this is discrimination because of religion. The bakery is not denying service because of the man's religion, but the hateful shit that he is trying to force the bakery to add into the cake. The man could just ask the people at the bakery to make a cake for him and then do the hateful shit himself.

According to this other article she did in fact offer to bake him the cake, and even offered to supply him with the tools and the icing and he could put it on himself, and he refused and told them to "Lawyer up"...he was intentionally looking for this outcome
 

Derwind

Member
But that isn't practical. If I put Muslim symbols, and Jewish symbols on cakes, but not Christian, that is discrimination. Similarly, if I'm okay with putting a man and woman as decoration on cakes, but not 2 men or 2 women, that's discrimination. Moreover, I could see an argument cropping up where a bakery once bakes a cake which says "God Loves Gays," but doesn't bake a cake which says "Being Gay is a Sin." This could be construed as religious discrimination because it discriminates against a portion of a religion. The bakery easily accepts a particular notion of God, while refusing another. If religion is a protected class, shouldn't the bakery be forced to accept all religious statements? Finally, if a gay couple orders a cake with a heterosexual couple on the cake, and the bakery agrees to bake it, but disagrees whey they place a homosexual couple on the cake, is this discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

This is the problem in theory with class protections. In practice we accept the contradictions because the problems that arise in lieu of class protections are too great for society to bear (I believe we could carve them out, but the state of our public administration is too shitty to execute it well).

None of that is relevant, how something is designed is the least bit relevant.

What is relevant is who is being targeted and upon what conditions are they being targetted.

A guy can come in wanting a cake that has a bloody hand on it flipping the bird. The owner can refuse to make that but continue to serve the costumer, maybe offer alternative designs or show them the catalogue on hand.

There is nothing wrong with that.

Another guy could be coming in just wanting a cake for his wedding and then refused said service because he's gay. The owner camnot do that.

One is denying the specifics involved in making the cake. The details involved in making the product is not protected.

The other is denying any service to the customer because of their ethnicity/gender/sex. Those groups are protected from discrimination such as that.

Its not very difficult to understand.
 

Famassu

Member
It's all hypothetical until it actually happens. Class protections are very unconstitutional, but we have them because we're too lazy to actually define in what situations people should have the status of a protected class. If you run a hotel or a diner, you should not be able to discriminate. If you run a bakery (and you're not the only one in town), I would argue that you should. There's no practical reason (other than its morally right) to force people who offer specialty services to serve everybody under the sun.
Too lazy to definte the situations? Any and EVERY situation is a situation where people shouldn't be treated any differently for being who they are. It doesn't need definition beyond that. They can, however, be treated differently because of their actions (i.e. asking to write hate-speech on a cake)

According to this other article she did in fact offer to bake him the cake, and even offered to supply him with the tools and the icing and he could put it on himself, and he refused and told them to "Lawyer up"...he was intentionally looking for this outcome
Seems like it.
 
I need to check my eyes. I read Barkley.

That's a pretty easy mistake to make.
1NmsyZM.png
 

Frodo

Member
Can't believe people go out of their way to be dick heads only for the sake of it.

It has nothing to do with their religion. If they were Christians (as I suppose they claim to be) they would also be against hate speech, regardless of whom this hate speech is aimed at. Sad that people still haven't got that figured out.
 

jmood88

Member
While the point was made stupidly (he could have just asked the bakery to make a cake that said "Gay marriage is a sin"... or something), this is an inconsistency. Which is why I'm against class protections in theory. In practice is a different question.

Cue moral outrage in 3... 2... 1...
There is no inconsistency. The other bakery completely refused to sell the gay couple a cake simply because they were gay, not because they wanted some "God loves gays" type of statement on it. This bakery would've made him a cake without the writing. The two situations are completely different.
 

mattp

Member
not only was this an obvious setup, but the people who tried to set up the bakery are too stupid to understand the difference between the bakery refusing to serve them at all vs refusing to make the specific item they asked for
 
There is no inconsistency. The other bakery completely refused to sell the gay couple a cake simply because they were gay, not because they wanted some "God loves gays" type of statement on it. This bakery would've made him a cake without the writing. The two situations are completely different.

This is a very good point and one I wasn't aware of.
 

Amir0x

Banned
These people are so stupid they can't even understand nuance in the law.

"Oops, sorry, you can't get a discriminatory hateful cake for a confirmed asshat. We'll be glad to make you a different cake despite your inarguable shithead tendencies!"

"How DARE you deny me service based on me being an assbackwards fairytale obsessive!"

"But sir we did not deny you service, we will bake you any other cake you want. May I recommend this cake that has a giant chocolate covered flopping penis atop its highest layer?"
 
While the point was made stupidly (he could have just asked the bakery to make a cake that said "Gay marriage is a sin"... or something), this is an inconsistency. Which is why I'm against class protections in theory. In practice is a different question.

Cue moral outrage in 3... 2... 1...

How about cue understanding of non-discrimination laws.
 

UrbanRats

Member
I'm not sure i get it, they aren't discriminating the person themselves, but just refusing to produce something with a message they disagree with.
If they had asked for a regular cake, they would get it, so it's not like they're discriminating against them as individuals.

If you ask an artist for a commission, they won't honor every single request you make, either, how is this different?
 

BumRush

Member
SUPER late to this thread so I'm sure it's been said, but can't a private business refuse a customer for any reason?
 

jiiikoo

Banned
SUPER late to this thread so I'm sure it's been said, but can't a private business refuse a customer for any reason?

It doesn't work exactly like that. If they had a right to do that, they could refuse to serve customers for the colour of their skin or for any other silly reason.

But that being said, a business that does cakes should have the right to refuse to do a 2 meter high cock cake if they didn't feel comfortable with it.
 

Wereroku

Member
It doesn't work exactly like that. If they had a right to do that, they could refuse to serve customers for the colour of their skin or for any other silly reason.

But that being said, a business that does cakes should have the right to refuse to do a 2 meter high cock cake if they didn't feel comfortable with it.

They do have that right. The cases that have occurred before involve a protected class. I assume the courts will throw it out through once it gets beyond the discrimination based on religion question to this being offensive material. Like hypothetically if someone wanted their wedding cake to be the one you described above I think the bakery could reject it even if it were a gay couple.
 
SUPER late to this thread so I'm sure it's been said, but can't a private business refuse a customer for any reason?

Not any reason.

There are civil rights that businesses are required by law to comply that say a business cannot discriminate based on race, sex, creed, and ethnicity/nationality.

However, there are multiple ways to discriminate against another person or party without doing so as above, including maybe overcharging someone whose asking for particular services such as the man in the story.

Or refusing to provide service if it endorses hate speech. This case falls under that.
 
But that isn't practical. If I put Muslim symbols, and Jewish symbols on cakes, but not Christian, that is discrimination. Similarly, if I'm okay with putting a man and woman as decoration on cakes, but not 2 men or 2 women, that's discrimination. Moreover, I could see an argument cropping up where a bakery once bakes a cake which says "God Loves Gays," but doesn't bake a cake which says "Being Gay is a Sin." This could be construed as religious discrimination because it discriminates against a portion of a religion. The bakery easily accepts a particular notion of God, while refusing another. If religion is a protected class, shouldn't the bakery be forced to accept all religious statements? Finally, if a gay couple orders a cake with a heterosexual couple on the cake, and the bakery agrees to bake it, but disagrees whey they place a homosexual couple on the cake, is this discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

This is the problem in theory with class protections. In practice we accept the contradictions because the problems that arise in lieu of class protections are too great for society to bear (I believe we could carve them out, but the state of our public administration is too shitty to execute it well).

Too bad that's not what's happening here. Unless you're arguing that "god hates fags" is a Christian symbol like the cross.
 

Furyous

Member
I'm here to point out business have rights too. Do you know how good it feels to stick their talking points in their faces? This cake tastes great. Now they give a fuck about discrimination? Cry me a fucking ocean while they're at it. Can't we all just get along, love who we want to love, be who we want to be, buy cakes where we want to buy cakes? It's 2015 and people are beefing over this.
 

lednerg

Member
This isn't a business that makes hate cakes which refused service to a Christian. This is a business which refused to make a hate cake because that's not what they make. They're not like a business that makes wedding cakes which refused to make one of those for a gay couple.
 

Montresor

Member
I think you should be allowed to say you hate gays, like the customer is doing in this case. But you shouldn't be allowed to force someone else to write "Gays are bad", whether it's on a piece of paper, their shirt, a billboard, or their cake. So there is nothing wrong with the bakery refusing to write the customer's requested message on the cake.
 

Grinchy

Banned
Why not sell them the icing and the thing that they use to write with icing. Then they could make the bible-shaped cake and provide the customer with the ability to write whatever they want on it.
 

draetenth

Member
Why not sell them the icing and the thing that they use to write with icing. Then they could make the bible-shaped cake and provide the customer with the ability to write whatever they want on it.

I could've sworn I read somewhere that the bakery did offer to give icing to the guy so he could write the message himself, but I cant remember where.
 
But that isn't practical. If I put Muslim symbols, and Jewish symbols on cakes, but not Christian, that is discrimination. Similarly, if I'm okay with putting a man and woman as decoration on cakes, but not 2 men or 2 women, that's discrimination. Moreover, I could see an argument cropping up where a bakery once bakes a cake which says "God Loves Gays," but doesn't bake a cake which says "Being Gay is a Sin." This could be construed as religious discrimination because it discriminates against a portion of a religion. The bakery easily accepts a particular notion of God, while refusing another. If religion is a protected class, shouldn't the bakery be forced to accept all religious statements? Finally, if a gay couple orders a cake with a heterosexual couple on the cake, and the bakery agrees to bake it, but disagrees whey they place a homosexual couple on the cake, is this discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

This is the problem in theory with class protections. In practice we accept the contradictions because the problems that arise in lieu of class protections are too great for society to bear (I believe we could carve them out, but the state of our public administration is too shitty to execute it well).
Jesus is about peace and love. Not vile hate and spite.

There is no war on Christians in America because real Christians are loving people.

Those who are haters are just right wing nut jobs.
 

Bodacious

Banned
So is this legit hate speech under law or what?

There basically is no such thing in the US. I mean, you could say there is such a thing as hate speech, but unless it is expressed in a way as to incite an immediate violent action it's pretty much protected by 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court even came down on the side of those crazy Westboro Baptists jerks who protest funerals with gay hate messages and etc. So most of the posts in the thread making reference to hate speech and etc are missing the mark.
 
There basically is no such thing in the US. I mean, you could say there is such a thing as hate speech, but unless it is expressed in a way as to incite an immediate violent action it's pretty much protected by 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court even came down on the side of those crazy Westboro Baptists jerks who protest funerals with gay hate messages and etc. So most of the posts in the thread making reference to hate speech and etc are missing the mark.

This, basically. In America we don't have laws against hate speech, because we have an absolutist philosophy regarding freedom of speech. But we do have "hate crime" laws, which are put in place as a substitute. Basically to commit a hate crime you need to assault someone while yelling what you would call hate speech. So calling a someone a directed slur and punching them in the face, basically. Hate crimes carry steeper penalties than regular assault. I think they are always felonies (most serious class of crime in US, and meaning those convicted lose much of their citizenship privileges like voting and gun ownership) as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom